Indian Point top US quake risk

BUCHANAN — A reactor at Indian Point faces greater probability of earthquake damage than any nuclear energy plant in the United States, according to a federal report.

Comment

By Adam Bosch

recordonline.com

By Adam Bosch

Posted Mar. 17, 2011 at 2:00 AM
Updated Mar 17, 2011 at 8:59 AM

By Adam Bosch

Posted Mar. 17, 2011 at 2:00 AM
Updated Mar 17, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Top plants at risk of seismic core damage

1) Indian Point Unit 3: 1 in 10,000 each year

2) Pilgrim Unit 1, Plymouth, Mass., 1 in 14,493

3) Limerick Unit 1 and Unit 2, Limerick, Pa., 1 in 18,868

4) Sequoyah Unit 1 and U...

» Read more

X

Top plants at risk of seismic core damage

1) Indian Point Unit 3: 1 in 10,000 each year

2) Pilgrim Unit 1, Plymouth, Mass., 1 in 14,493

3) Limerick Unit 1 and Unit 2, Limerick, Pa., 1 in 18,868

4) Sequoyah Unit 1 and Unit 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., 1 in 19,608

5) Beaver Valley Unit 1, Shippingport, Pa., 1 in 20,833

25) Indian Point Unit 2, 1 in 30,303

Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

» Social News

BUCHANAN — A reactor at Indian Point faces greater probability of earthquake damage than any nuclear energy plant in the United States, according to a federal report.

The odds of seismic damage at Indian Point Unit 3 top all the nation's 104 nuclear reactors. Experts said there's a 1-in-10,000 chance each year that Indian Point's 35-year-old reactor could suffer core damage from an earthquake — the type of damage that would likely release radiation into the atmosphere.

Indian Point Unit 2 ranked No. 25 on the list, with 1-to-33,303 annual odds. When compared to 1989 data, the new assessment represents a 136 percent and 72 percent increase in risk for Unit 2 and Unit 3, respectively.

The risk assessment was reported by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in August and was based on 2008 seismic data compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey.

"When Indian Point was built, the information that was relied on said there was no seismic activity in this area," said Phillip Musegaas of the environmental group Riverkeeper. "That info needs to be thrown out the window, and the new science needs to be looked at through an independent process."

Jolted to action by the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, Gov. Andrew Cuomo joined the chorus Wednesday by announcing that he ordered a safety review of the plant. NRC officials are also reviewing Indian Point's earthquake safeguards.

Improved science and technology has shown that Indian Point is more vulnerable than experts believed when it was built in the 1970s. In 2008, a leading group of seismologists at Columbia University found that two intersecting fault lines one mile north of Indian Point were capable of creating a 7.0-magnitude earthquake.

Indian Point officials said the plant is capable of withstanding a 6.1-magnitude temblor.

Seismologists have also determined that rocks deep below the surface around Indian Point are harder and older than in places like California, which means they can carry earthquake shocks farther and faster.

That also means an earthquake of any given magnitude would likely be more damaging in places such as New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Cuomo, back when he was attorney general, included earthquake vulnerability as one of 26 reasons in a 2008 petition to deny a 20-year license extension for Indian Point.

The NRC threw out the request and said seismology would not be considered.

Seismologist Lynn Sykes, who led the Columbia study, accused the NRC of "punting" on the issue instead of taking science seriously.

"I think we need a more objective approach on this," Sykes said. "In general, the scientific staff at the NRC has pretty much gone along with what the industry wants."

Entergy, Indian Point's parent company, reiterated its belief that the plant's nuclear reactors are safe from natural threats. Spokesman Jerry Nappi pointed out that seismic damage odds for Unit 3, while tops in the country, were still very low.

"You have to recognize it's a comparison of plants that are all at very low risk of damage from an earthquake event," he said. "I don't think a claim is being made that there's a high degree of risk."

Still, new data has been enough to get people shouting. Dutchess County Legislator Joel Tyner organized a rally Wednesday on the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie to call for the temporary shut down of Indian Point. Like many, he believes the plant's position on a fault line 35 miles away from New York City poses a unique risk.

"I'd love to see Indian Point shut down tomorrow," he said, "but at the very least we need a temporary shutdown to take a good, hard look at this."

abosch@th-record.com

How to use this map:

Click any icon on this map to display a nuclear plant's name, location, date of construction, risk of damaging earthquake as assessed in 2008, risk of damaging earthquake as assessed in 1989, and the percent change between those two assessments.

For instance, Indian Point Unit 3 held a risk of 1-in-17,241 for a core-damaging earthquake in 1989, and 1-in-10,000 in 2008, for a change of 72 percent.